9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als)-XX, Kolkata, in Appeal No. 513/CIT(A)-XX/Cir-36/2007-08/Kol dated March 6, 2012 for the assessment year 2005-06. Shri R. Mukherjee, LLB, FCA, CA, the learned authorised representative appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri P. S. Dutta, learned senior Departmental representative appeared on behalf of the Revenue. In the assessee's appeal the assessee has raised the following grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is in violation of the principles of natural justice and accordingly your appellant prays to delete the addition upholding the income as per original return. 3. For that your appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground/s on or before the hearing. It was submitted by the learned authorised representative for the assessee that the assessee had paid salary of Rs. 2.20 lakhs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operations of the assessee's business. It was the submission that the salary paid to Smt. Madhumita Paul was liable to be allowed. In reply, the learned senior Departmental representative has vehemently supported the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We have considered the rival submission. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that Smt. Madhumita Paul, had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has estimated the salary of Smt. Madhumita Paul without considering any comparative case or without laying any foundation for such estimation itself. In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is no ground for restricting the salary paid to Smt. Madhumita Paul at Rs. 1.20 lakhs as against the claim of Rs. 2.20 lakhs. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
